Author
Topic: ORTHODOX ANSWERS..PLZ READ (Read 12133 times)

Recent posts on the board have sparked an interest among myself, and among several others in regard to creation of a site/article publishing community aptly dubbed Orthodox Answers.

Further brainstorming on the issue has given myself and others several ideas, and room for many more. As a collective entity banded together we could definitely make an impact on communities in evangelization, information, and education.

This may appeal to some, and to others may be a complete turn off. However, if this is an organization that you might be willing to contribute some time to, either by writing, spreading the word, research, etc., I urge you to please send an email to the address below which will add you to the Orthodox Answers mailing list. I will be sending an email out on Friday or Saturday with more specific information.

Orthodox Answers will be a completely separate entity from OrthodoxChristianity.net, and if progress is made will likely become a not for profit organization. Although similar in name to Catholic Answers, we will NOT be affiliated with them, nor try to settle any vendetta we personally may have with them. While the specific content for Orthodox Answers has not yet been decided on, it will not be an apologetics site aimed at debate as such.

Much has to be decided, and if this is something you might be serious about, PLEASE sign up for the mailing list. We have the ability and call to make an impact on our local communities and the larger ones as well.

Thanks,Bobby

To subscribe to the mailinglist, simply send a message with the word 'subscribe' in the Subject: field to the -request address of that list

DISCLAIMER: By signed up for the above, you will be receiving mail from the list moderator as well as the list participants. You agree not to hold OC.net or it's ISP responsible if you consider this spam. You may remove yourself from the list at any time by:

OrthodoxInfo.com is an informative site, but in my opinion caters to a different community in a different fashion. It also has little renown and popularity outside of it's small internet circle.Nevertheless, someone may still feel that Orthodox Answers would be a dupe site. That's ok, how many competitors do you see in the marketplace? Healthy competition and work ethics would motivate both sites to go above and beyond in an attempt to be 'better' than each other.

Orthodox Answers, in my mind, should appeal to the Orthodox community much in the way Catholic Answers appealed to the Roman Catholic one. If you read up on the history of Catholic Answers, it started as a small community who wrote their own articles, and grew sizably with the addition of clergy and laymen. Now they are a relatively common name among 'neo-conservative' RCs.

No-one said it wouldn't take work, time, effort, and patience to get this far. Do I guarantee it? No. From the people I talk to regularly with on this forum though, I know there is a lot of talent across a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences which could definitely prove beneficial.

Again, if you're interested, send an email to the address I specified in the above post. No one said it was going to be easy.

One thing I think is important in attempting a site like that is to be firmly canonical, but not uncharitable. Orthodoxinfo.com has a lot of good material, but as my Baptist coworkers would say they can have a bad "witness" of Orthodoxy as a squabbling gathering of resistance clans throwing stones at each other. At times we fall on OC.net, but I feel that we have not sunk to that level. Having administrators that are Coptic, OCA, ROCOR, and Byzantine Catholic helps keep us grounded.

Other good sources to emulate in tone are Fr. John Matusiak's Q&A articles on the OCA homepage(maybe email Fr. John and ask if we can reprint or link to each answer he has given? It would be nice to have both short Q&As along with articles) and the articles and posts of Matthew Steenberg on www.monachos.net.

*Firing off an email to the autosubscribe now*

Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."-Yazid Ibrahim

Catholic Answers provides a service to Catholics by having tracts published which can easily be printed.

Orthodox Answers could do a similar service.

We must be carefull not to stupe to CA's level though by publishing misleading information (such as their quoting St. Cyprian's "On the Unity of the Catholic Church" in its first recension without explaining that he later edited that document significantly).

If the focus is on providing tracts and information that can easily be disseminated in a charitable way, I'm all for it. If it evolves to be anti-something then it won't serve Christ.

I've seen handouts on fasting, confession, etc, that would be good to have in HTML format and in PDF.

It might also be a good idea to have a board that must approve each article, tract, etc before it is published on the website.

Let's keep the ideas rolling, it would be especially good to have them rolling by emailing the list Bobby created as I've been checking my email every hour at work looking forward to seeing a message!!

Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."-Yazid Ibrahim

Perhaps the best thing would be to have two sites, but with different focuses? From what is there at the site, (a lengthy article on sola scriptura, a series of more than a dozen sermons on the same subject) it seems to be covering each issue with a good deal of depth. Perhaps the site that is being thought about could be one that keeps things brief (a few thousand words), being more like a Q&A/Apologetic site. Or perhaps not, I don't think it really matters, as long as everyone stays friendly. After all, if someone wants to learn about a subject, articles on two sites are better than articles on one site. Think of it this way, when we want to know what the Bible says about a subject, we don't just look at one scripture, but we try to find all the pertinent passages. It's not that the one passage is wrong, it's just that the other scriptures might have something to add, or help us better understand the other passages. Perhaps the same thing would be good with these sites.

I agree with all that you have said, but I think it is good to present a unified front whenever possible and this guy has set up a nice site. What I would do if we agreed to work with him would be to have subheadings under each topic of the format of information within. For example

The Holy Scriptures/ArticlesSola Scriptura - In the Vanity of Thier Minds by Dn. John WhitefordThe Orthodox Bible - History of the Canon by Bishop Nathaniel of ViennaThe Bible, The Church, and the Critics by Fr. Jack Sparks/Q&AHow many books are in the Orthodox Bible?What is the best translation to study?/PampheletsWhich Came First the Church or the New Testament by Fr. James Bernstein/DiscussionDiscuss this topic on OrthodoxChristianity.netDiscuss this topic on Monachos.net/LinksRSV Online - Read the RSV TranslationOrthodox Bible Study.com - A ficticious site for nonficticious topics

That's what I'd do anyway.

Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."-Yazid Ibrahim

First a clarification: I am a former Protestant pastor, missionary, and seminary prof. I converted to Orthodoxy in 1994 on Valaam (Moscow Patriarchate), my spiritual father is an OCA abbot, I am a member of an Antiochian parish. Hopefully ‘nuff said about that.

Orthodox Answers is currently under construction. I got the suite of domains (.com, .net, .org) specifically to guard against confusion in general, and the risk of having one of the schismatic groups put together a “copy-cat” version.

As I said, the site is not yet launchedGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âª it is being programmed now, based on the general template you see at www.orthodoxanswers.org. The .com “look” was ruled out early.

The idea of the design is for it to be very simple, very clean, and easy to read online.

The participants (contributors, editors) are mostly clergy, all scholars and/or pastors with experience in answering REAL questions asked about the ancient Christian Faith, especially in our North American, Protestant culture. All are canonical (in the SCOBA sense) and committed to being so. The forum is not a place for liberal or speculative treatments of any subject, but rather to promote a normative, traditional Orthodox voice.

Other than SCOBA jurisdictions, there will be representative work welcomed from members of the Moscow Patriarchate, Jerusalem Patriarchate, and ROCOR, and possibly other canonical jurisdictions with no parishes in N. America. Groups like HOCNA, ROCIE, etc., will not be endorsed.

We are expecting upwards of 2 dozen or more active contributors. Each will have a pwd-controlled control panel, and be able to submit articles, papers, homilies, book reviews, etc. Upon submission, there will be a period of peer-review, when all the rest of the contributors are encouraged to read, and if necessary, comment on the submission. A finalized version will be presented to a general vote of the contributorsGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âª 1/3 or more NOs means the article is not published on the site. In this way, we are seeking to provide ORTHODOX answers by concilliar conscience, and guard against heresy, irrelevance, bad scholarship, etc.

The idea is to have a dynamic (constantly growing and expanding, DB-driven, templated), automated (no programming required after the complete engine is ready, cut/paste, auto-format, etc)GÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âª after the launch period, it will be nearly run on its ownGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âª new contributors will be elected by the core members based on interest, scholarship, experience, reputation, maturity, etc., contributors can choose how, when, and to what extent they will be active. Considering the expanding nature of the site, there will be new contributions all the time. We want to see it be RICH with information on many, many topics. THE source for answers about Orthodoxy on the Web.

That is why a very deliberate approach is being taken. The site by Patrick Barnes, “orthodoxinfo.com,” is very good, BUT 1. is a labor of love by one man, and therefore vulnerable to all sorts of errors, stagnation, etc. 2. does not represent the Canonical Orthodox voice on many issues, 3. nevertheless, is about as good as it gets (SO FAR!). Kudos to Mr. Barnes for the massive amount of time and attention he gives to his project. However, a less-marginal forum is needed. We will endeavor to prevent against errors of all sorts, non-Orthodox opinions (doctrinal), schismatic tendencies, and syncretistic liberalism/modernism. In short, we want it to be where people will find ORTHODOX answers.

Having exhausted the “vision” in rambling prose, I’d like to welcome any and all interested Orthodox Christians to participate in the site’s development. The more, the better. Please e-mail me directly at athan@1plan.net. We are open to suggestions and ideas. I am excited that the idea has struck a chord with others, even independently of us.

Brothers and sisters, we are on the same team, and (I hope) wanting merely to serve God, His Church, and those earnestly seeking answers to their heart-felt questions. So, I am up for and very covetous of collaboration.

[name removed]

P.S. BTWGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âª even though it is in the /whois DB, I’d like it if my name and address were not posted on the forum! K

Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."-Yazid Ibrahim

I don;t know if it has been mentioned, but there is also an Orthodox Apologetics site at http://www.orthodoxstudies.org/ if any one is interested. They seem to be interested in articles from others. Of course http://orthodoxInfo.com also publishes others' works, most recently our own Chrysostomos Parks!

After discussion with a few forum members, here is a rough outline of what we'd want to encompass in Orthodox Answers. Let me know if you see something I've missed or something that is miscatergorized. I apologise for the hard to read format.

After discussion with a few forum members, here is a rough outline of what we'd want to encompass in Orthodox Answers. Let me know if you see something I've missed or something that is miscatergorized. I apologise for the hard to read format.

I do think that there is some benefit in placing them with Protestants. It illustrates the errors that arise when one rejects the authority of the Church. When one "interprets" the Bible without the guidence of Holy Tradition, all forms of heretical doctrines appear.

I definitely think Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Seventh Day Adventists should come under the heading Protestantism, since they clearly arose from the Protestant milieu and most nearly resemble the groups that evolved from the radical wing of the Reformation.

I would also like to see Eschatology as a major topic heading, with the heresy Dispensationalism as a subcategory.

When can we begin submitting articles?

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

I would disagree. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, even iof the later came from the Adventists Movement are not christian as they do not believe in the Trinity. They should be others, just like Muslims are.

From Nicholas: I would disagree. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, even iof the later came from the Adventists Movement are not christian as they do not believe in the Trinity. They should be others, just like Muslims are.

As distasteful as it may seem, JWs and Mormons are loosely Christian in that they claim to be following the teachings of Jesus Christ, and their sects arose from within Protestantism and its doctrinal and cultural milieu.

They are Christian heresies just as Protestantism itself is a Christian heresy. In the same way, Arianism and Gnosticism were "Christian."

The modern Protestant Episcopal Church, with its liberal doctrines and its embrace of homosexuality, radical feminism and the like, is no more "Christian" than the Watchtower Society.

Should it be classed as "other?"

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

From Nicholas: I'd sayMormons especially share more in common with Muslims who see Jesus as a great prophet and they look forward to him coming again. But I don't think we'll be calling them Christian either!

JWs on the other hand think that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. They don't see him as divine at all.

I think that if you do not believe in the Trinity, you are not Christian.

Nicholas,

Although it does not really matter to me where we put the Mormons and JWs, I think it is pretty evident that those sects are Christian heresies, just as Arianism and Gnosticism were.

The Arians and Gnostics did not believe in the Trinity (and many other essential Christian doctrines) either.

What does one do with clearly Protestant sects like the Unitarians, who also deny the Trinity? Should they also be classified under Other Non-Christian?

The reason I think the JWs and Mormons should be placed under the heading of Protestantism is because they did not arise in a vacuum, but in the social, cultural, and doctrinal milieu of Protestant North America. They are the products of the Protestant mindset.

To place them in the category of Other Non-Christian is to give the impression that they came into being independently and sprang full-blown from the minds of their respective "prophets."

I do not think that is the case.

Jehovah's Witnesses would not exist if not for 19th-century chiliastic American Fundamentalist Protestantism.

Mormonism would not exist if not for a combination of chiliastic, revivalist American Protestantism and Freemasonry.

If one examines the views of many Protestant sects closely, one sees that they are very nearly as heretical as the JWs and Mormons, regardless of the lip-service they pay to the doctrine of the Trinity and to the Nicene Creed (which they thoroughly misunderstand and misinterpret).

Perhaps we should create a separate category for Christian heresies and include the JWs and Mormons in that, along with the Arians, Gnostics, etc.

But where does that leave Protestantism?

Is it merely schismatic or heretical?

I would argue for the latter classification, although I am a former Protestant.

« Last Edit: February 27, 2003, 09:48:17 AM by Linus7 »

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

Although Protestantism came wrom the west, Mormonism and Islam have much in common sprouting from heresies and being added to by a charleton making them each not Christian. In fact it is just a common thing for Mormons to call themselves a Protestant Christian Relgion to mainstream themselves.

But to fulfil both arguments, maybe we should have a sub-section of Non-Christian Protestants then?

How about a subsection for Protestants, Protestant based Non-Christians. Next to the category name we can put a short note saying that historically only groups that recognize the Trinity and the dual humanity/divinity of Christ can be considered Christian. Would that seem a fair compromise?

I think Amator Dei's compromise is acceptable, although I disagree with the following statement:

Quote

From Amator Dei: *Historically only groups that accept the Trinity and the dual humanity/divinity can be classified as Christian even though they may classify themselves as such.

Various heretical groups that arose from within Christianity are Christian heresies and cannot really be considered Non-Christian in the same sense that religions like Buddhism and Hinduism that arose independent of Christianity can.

I agree completely that denial of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ make one a heretic; but one who does those things and still centers his religion on what he imagines are the teachings of Christ is a Christian heretic.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not attempting to give legitimacy to JWs and Mormons, far from it. But their heretical beliefs are the unfortunate legacy of Protestantism. If Protestantism is Christian, then so are its bastard children.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

Historically only groups that accept the Trinity and the dual humanity/divinity can be classified as Christian even though they may classify themselves as such.

Agreed. Mormons and JWs aren’t Christians. Because they grew out of Protestantism, they blend into America’s religious culture and easily misrepresent themselves to inquirers as Christians, but they’re not. I agree with the classification ‘Protestant-based non-Christians’. Accurate and to the point.

Classical Protestantism is a set of heretical movements, all denying the reality of the Eucharist and most (the big exception being Anglicanism) denying episcopacy, but they hold to basic credal orthodoxy about the points named by Amator Dei and so are still Christian heresies.

There is an excellent article by William Dalrymple linked on my Faith page in the Islam box, about how in many ways Islam is the kin of Eastern Christianity. Ironically this is echoed in the H.W. Crocker III putdown quoted on my blog; he calls Eastern Orthodox the Islamicists of Christianity (for which the EOs should say, ‘Thank you!’). Islam may well be our bastard; Mormonism and JW are those of Protestantism (as is today’s secular humanism!), and Protestantism is the bastard of Catholicism for that matter. But Islam, Mormonism and JW are not Christian.

Reminds me a little of something a Russian Catholic acquaintance once said. He claims the EOs every now and then try to get rid of the Council of Chalcedon, meaning either Monophysitism is a perennial temptation for them and/or he disagrees with the current rapprochement of the EOs with the Churches now called ‘pre-Chalcedonian’ or ‘non-Chalcedonian’ (IOW, the Oriental Orthodox). ‘What next?’ he said. ‘Pretty soon they’re going to be calling Muslims “pre-Nicene Orthodox”!’

Linus7, I understood what you meant even before you added your correction, but thanks anyway.

Quote

But where does that leave Protestantism?

Is it merely schismatic or heretical?

Again, Mormons, JWs and Unitarians are ‘Protestant-based non-Christians’. (Unitarian Universalists as a church don’t pretend to be Christian, but there are members who claim they personally are Christian.) You can call Muslims ‘Eastern-based non-Christians’ or ‘Semitic-based non-Christians’ in about the same way.

To answer the question, as I mentioned above, classical Protestantism in its several varieties is heretical but still Christian.

As for who’s schismatic, of course Catholics would apply that to any person or group who, though not ascribing to formal heresy, leaves the authority of the Pope. Eastern Orthodox would to any such who leave their communion and set up shop independent of it.

Quote

One can well argue that the Mormons don't even measure up to the basic requirement of being monotheists.

That’s right. Donny Osmond, for example, believes as every Mormon does that if he dies as a Mormon man in good standing he will be a god, equal to the one worshipped by people on Earth, with his very own planet of human worshippers. I think married women’s salvation depends on their husbands’ status (I don’t what happens to single women) — they and their god-husbands create spirit-children who then become their people on their planet. (Yes, Mormons believe there is a Mrs God begetting all of us.) So the bottom line is Mormonism is polytheistic!

The modern Protestant Episcopal Church, with its liberal doctrines and its embrace of homosexuality, radical feminism and the like, is no more "Christian" than the Watchtower Society.

Should it be classed as "other?"

I must respectfully disagree with and protest this catagorization. The statements and beliefs of individual and outspoken Episcopalians (John Spong, Bennison of Pennsylvania and so forth) are one thing. The stated doctrines in the Book of Common Prayer and the beliefs of millions of other Episcopalians are another. The published (in official documents) beliefs and doctrines of the JW's are what clearly make the organization not "Christian".

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

But I do believe their movements are Christian heresies, just as Arianism, Gnosticism, Ebionitism, Nasoreanism, Albigensianism, etc., were all Christian heresies.

Here is Hilaire Belloc's very excellent definition of heresy:

Heresy is the dislocation of some complete and self-supporting scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential part therein. We mean by "a complete and self-supporting scheme" any system of affirmation in physics or mathematics or philosophy or what-not, the various parts of which are coherent and sustain each other.

Given that definition, it is evident that the "scheme" a heresy attempts to dislocate is its base and gives it its identity.

Any heresy which has as its primary thrust the dislocation of Christianity is, by definition, a Christian heresy. Christianity is the base "scheme" it attempts to dislocate.

Without Christianity, there would be no JWs and no Mormons. Without Christianity, there would be no Arianism, Gnosticism, etc.

All of those things are Christian heresies because they are rooted in the introduction of novel denials of essential aspects of Christianity.

Think of them as parasites. Their host is Christianity.

Because they are dependent for their very origin and existence upon Christianity, they cannot be considered as purely non-Christian in the way that Buddhism and Hinduism are non-Christian.

Setting up the doctrine of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ as what makes a sect "Christian" is completely arbitrary and without support, as far as I can tell, either patristically or historically.

Don't get me wrong. I am an Orthodox Christian. I believe in the Symbol of Faith and all it makes plain. But to reduce Christianity to two doctrines, however essential, and to then say, "Whoever believes these particular two is a 'Christian'," is unjustified.

Those who believe in those two are more orthodox than those who do not, but one must look at the historical origins of a sect to determine whether or not it sprung from Christianity and is dependent for its existence on it.

A heresy that springs from Christianity is a Christian heresy.

Those who deny the Trinity and the two natures of Christ are simply more heretical than those who do not and yet maintain other heretical doctrines.

Protestantism is a heresy with a multitude of sects that form a kind of spectrum with a "more orthodox" end and a "radically heretical" end. At the "more orthodox" end of the spectrum are the Lutherans, the Anglicans, and the Presbyterians. At the far left one progresses through the Baptist and Anabaptist groups until one passes out of the visibly Christian wavelengths and enters the ultraviolet zone of heresy: the zone wherein dwell the JWs, the Mormons, and their ilk.

I suppose one could argue that Islam is a Christian heresy. But it is so thoroughly recognized as a completely separate religion that I think it is safe to continue to treat it as one.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

Protestantism is a heresy with a multitude of sects that form a kind of spectrum with a "more orthodox" end and a "radically heretical" end. At the "more orthodox" end of the spectrum are the Lutherans, the Anglicans, and the Presbyterians. At the far left one progresses through the Baptist and Anabaptist groups until one passes out of the visibly Christian wavelengths and enters the ultraviolet zone of heresy: the zone wherein dwell the JWs, the Mormons, and their ilk.